Talk:1968 Illinois earthquake/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Still more to be added, especially in response section but I feel it is enough for GA.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

It's ok, fairly sparse but for an article of this length it covers the subject.
Your table says the depth was 19 km (12mi), since this is an article about an event in the U.S. per WP:UNITS the miles should be listed first with km second. In the lead you say the quake was felt over a 500,000 square mile area, is there a metric conversion for this measurement?

Done. Ceran^→//forge 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding geography

You give magnitudes of 5.2 and 5.54, is this on the Richter scale? If so please specify.

That is specified. Please read more carefully. :)

"One man proposed..." This makes it sound like some guy just guessed, cite who you are quoting.

"strike-slip faulting" Watch jargon here. And jargon here - "dip slip reverse motion".
"It also occurred on the New Madrid Fault, also responsible for the great New Madrid earthquakes in 1812, the most powerful earthquake to hit the contiguous United States.[9]" Stub paragraph, what also occurred at the New Madrid Fault? This sentence isn't clear in the context. The paragraph above refers to two seismic events happening, which one do you refer to as "it" in this sentence? Please clarify and expand the paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ceran^→//forge 19:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding damage

"major damage occurred, the worst damage occurred" damage occurred duplicated, consider rewording.
Again putting kilometers before miles.

I hope you are suggesting that miles come first in articles in the United States.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly, miles should come first in article relating to the U.S. H1nkles (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any monetary estimates on the damage caused by the quake? H1nkles (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Ceran^→//forge 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding References

References are credible and the links all check out ok.

Overall review

I usually tend to avoid reading the talk page when I'm doing my review but since this failed GA once before I decided to see what the issues were in the previous review. As I can tell they revolve around coverage, do you address all the major issues in this article? I agree that more could be included. I did not read through all your sources but they are solid and credible. Is there more information there that could be included in the article?

For the most part the prose is good.
The photos check out.
Check those jargon issues, stub paragraphs, and the miles vs. km conversion issues for MoS compliance.
I'll hold it for a week and let you make corrections then review when you're ready. H1nkles (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

It looks as though you've emplemented my suggestions so I'll pass it. I'm concerned about the response section. It's very limited. This should be expanded. Otherwise it's good and I'll pass it. H1nkles (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]